So I probably won’t make the two week deadline, but I might get a rough draft of an actual “Give this to your friends to show them how to play” document over the next few days.

Good question! My instincts are to say “Yes”, and further, let them work together on actions which can be challenged. So, to use a cliche fantasy example:

GM:  “The goblins beat you up, take away your weapons, and put you in chains, dragging you away to their camp.”

Player 1: “Challenge 3!”

Player 2: “Yeah, I’ll put 2 points towards that as well.”

Player 3: “Challenge 2 as well!”

So the GM has a choice (assuming, for simplicity’s sake, no relevant qualities): pay out 7 point to the players to have their characters captured, or get 7 points total from the players, and their characters resist.

It strikes me that this could work the other way, too. Characters helping each other to [i]overcome[/i] challenges. So, for example:

Player 1: “I slay the Dragon!”

GM: “Challenge 8!”

Player 1: “Crap. That’s… kind of high.”

Player 2: “I’ll put forth 2 points for that.” (narrates how his character helps)

Player 3: “Me too!” (ditto)

Player 1: “Okay, that’s more affordable.”

This does give players who are working together a distinct advantage over players who are by themselves (such as a typical adversarial GM), but the way the game works, that advantage will quickly be nullified after being used a few times: in order to “buy out” a person, you need to at least double their point total each time. (IE, a challenge 8 when they have 7 points will overpower them, but leave them with 15 points, and you with 8 points less, so buying them out next time will be quite a bit trickier, probably)

The tricky bit here is that, if the challenge still ends up getting rejected, do you give points to the players who offered to help? Maybe once they commit themselves to helping they’re automatically part of the challenge, so once player 2 says “I’ll put forth 2 points to that”, then they HAVE to put forth 2 points for that if the other 6 points are taken care of, but if they aren’t, they get to claim at least 2 of the points from the challenger if it ends up being accepted.

Actually, figuring out how Qualities, as they currently stand, DO interact with collaboration “payouts” might be important. If I don’t want qualities to “stack”, should multiple players each get one quality? Or do I limit it to one per side (presumably, the player who actually declared the action, or challenge, in the first place, gets ‘dibs’ on use of their Qualities, if that’s the case.) Hmmm.

Character creation did take a bit longer than I had original thought it would. A few people mentioned that they would have liked “3 questions for setting creation, 3 questions for character creation”. I suppose it wouldn’t be that hard to just use “What quality do you posssess that none of the other PCs possess?” but I still kind of like the idea of using differences between individuals rather than differences between the individual and the group as a whole.

Another thing one player tried to do is, when acting on another player’s character, put points of strength “behind” his action: sort of like a preemptive challenge to their attempted resistance. As I wrote it, a challenge is always a reaction to stop someone from doing something: but it still has that inherent fairness. If you bid too low a number, they’ll just block your action, paying you a pittance of points to do so.  If you bid too high, they’ll just accept your actions, and you’ll have to pay through the nose for it. So there’s a pretty good incentive to try and place the strength as ‘fairly’ as you can, either way.

Another thing that came up, and probably is worth mentioning in the rules, was contested actions. Rather than one person acting and another resisting that action, both were trying to perform mutually exclusive actions upon the other (In this case, convincing each other that they were the best candidate to be in charge). There was a bit of confusion and discussion as to how to handle this: two different challenges? Which would go first? As of now, I think I would just let either player set the strength of the challenge, and the other person get the usual choice, with the stakes “I win but pay points” versus “He wins but pays points” instead of “He wins but pays points” versus “He doesn’t win and I pay points”.

All good food for thought as far as explaining the rules in the next draft goes.

Playtesting: worth it.

I admit I am kind of tempted to completely cut out qualities from the challenge mechanics, though. There’s something elegant and pure about simple “I cut, you choose” of setting a point number and letting the other player decide if it’s worth it or not. But I do want them to be mechanically significant somehow: Maybe I’ll make it so you can’t use multiple qualities to help a challenge (something one player assumed was the case anyway), to lessen situations where one player has four qualities and another only has one being a fairly gross imbalance, but it’s still a little bit useful.

“Dividers” suggested defining characters by what makes them different from each other. If everybody is a good fighter, you don’t really need to have “fighter” on your character sheet, now, do you? It has nothing to do with the compass tool, but I’ll take what inspiration I can get.

“Intrigue” suggested the idea of using a struggle for dynastic succession as the basic premise/situation.

So, that’s how I got from the ingredients list to “The Starflower Throne”, basically.

Awardwise, I’ll be gunning for each of the submission deadlines (with playtesting and revision based on it), the Al Gore Award (for being designed for internet use: simple mechanics that don’t use dice for easy pick-up play in a medium where player availability can be so transient), and the Brevity Award.

A bit more on how playtesting went down, and my thoughts and reactions to it (as well as some of the playtesters’ comments), in my next post.

Each player starts the game with 7 points.

Whenever a character takes an action that another character wishes to stop or oppose, that character’s player may announce that they are doing so, and issue a challenge, putting any number of points behind it (no greater than they currently have, plus the number of helpful Qualities they have: see below).

The acting may decide to accept the challenge. If they do so, their action is successfully stopped, and the challenging player pays the acting player a number of points equal to the challenge’s strength. If the acting player rejects the challenge, on the other hand, the action is presumed successful despite the challenging character’s attempted interference, and the acting player must pay the challenging player a number of points equal to the challenge’s strength. If the acting player does not have enough points to do so, they must accept the challenge.

Each quality that would support the acting character’s action or the challenging character’s challenge decreases the amount of points they must pay. For example, a character with the qualities “Expert swordsman” and “Very Intimidating” challenges another character’s action by drawing their sword threatening them. They make a 5-point challenge, but if it is accepted, they must only pay 3 points to the acting player.

Qualities may also be compelled. Any player may, at any time, suggest a course of action for another player’s character plausibly motivated by one of the compelled character’s Qualities, and put any number of points behind the compel. This is treated much like a challenge: if the compel is accepted, the character acts in the proposed manner, and the compelling player pays the compelled character’s player the number of points. If the compel is rejected, (and the entire group agrees the quality might reasonably compel such actions), the compelled character’s player must pay the compelling player the points, instead. Since compels are done out of character, qualities will not decrease the number of points that must be paid either way. (In character persuasion would be used by the action/challenge system, instead.)

The GM starts with seven points, like any other player, and may give each NPC up to 3 qualities: one representing their job or profession, one that differentiates them from most other people in that profession, and one purely of the GM’s choice.

What quality causes people to argue in favor of you being chosen to rule the Starflower Empire after the Empress’s passing?
What quality causes people to argue against you being chosen to rule the Starflower Empire after the Empress’s passing?
What quality do you possess that the character of the player to your left does not?
What quality do you possess that the character of the player second to your left does not?
(and etc: ask that last question once for each other player. Certain groups may wish to collaboratively discuss this beforehand, establishing basic character concepts and allowing player veto before one player declares that another’s does not possess the quality of “Intelligence” or so forth.)

Jot down any additional small details you feel are worth noting about your character. These aren’t mechanically significant Qualities, but inform the other players as to the nature of your character.

Questions to be answered as a group:

Why is the Starflower the symbol of the Empire?
What was the cause of the Starflower Empress’s death?
What important events were going on that will require any successor’s immediate attention?